Teenage hackers motivated by morality not money, study finds | Technology | The Guardian

Young people attack computer networks to impress friends and challenge political system, crime research shows

Fuente: Teenage hackers motivated by morality not money, study finds | Technology | The Guardian


Your new iPhone’s features include oppression, inequality – and vast profit | Aditya Chakrabortty | Opinion | The Guardian

Human battery hens make Apple’s devices in China. The company, which has a bigger cash pile than the US government, symbolises a broken economic system

Fuente: Your new iPhone’s features include oppression, inequality – and vast profit | Aditya Chakrabortty | Opinion | The Guardian


‘Edward Snowden did this country a great service. Let him come home’ | US news | The Guardian

Bernie Sanders, Daniel Ellsberg, former members of the NSA and more weigh in on whether Obama should grant clemency to the divisive whistleblower

Fuente: ‘Edward Snowden did this country a great service. Let him come home’ | US news | The Guardian


Facebook al desnudo: la nueva moralina del arte se apodera de Internet – El Mostrador

El ejemplo de Tunick resulta muy ilustrativo. Si la intervención hubiera sido esta semana, la consecuencia serían miles de cuentas bloqueadas y una perjudicial autocensura en los medios que comparten sus contenidos en las redes. Pero, más allá de la ficción, sin ir más lejos, hace pocas semanas la Revista Nos, de Concepción, sufrió una insólita censura cuando Facebook bajó uno de sus videos promocionales –con el cual buscaban conmemorar sus 21 años de existencia–, tras considerarlo “contenido para adultos”.

Fuente: Facebook al desnudo: la nueva moralina del arte se apodera de Internet – El Mostrador


¿Es legítima la retención de datos en Colombia? – Noticias Nacionales – Radio Macondo

En el marco del día de protección de datos personales Fundación Karisma, con el apoyo de la organización británica Privacy International, lanza su más reciente análisis ¿Es legítima la retención de datos en Colombia?. En este documento se analizan las normas colombianas sobre retención de datos y se las compara con las de Perú, México y Brasil desde el punto de vista del cumplimiento de los estándares internacionales para el establecimiento de medidas de restricción de derechos fundamentales, especialmente de la libertad de expresión y la intimidad.En el informe se concluye que a juzgar por los estándares internacionales para la protección de derechos humanos en la vigilancia de las comunicaciones, la retención de datos es ilegítima. Esto es cierto tanto para el caso de Colombia como para el de los demás países mencionados.

Fuente: ¿Es legítima la retención de datos en Colombia? – Noticias Nacionales – Radio Macondo


Edward Snowden wins Guardian readers' Nobel peace prize poll, ahead of Malala Yousafzai | World news | The Guardian

Edward Snowden wins Guardian readers’ Nobel peace prize poll, ahead of Malala Yousafzai | World news | The Guardian.

Edward Snowden won the majority of Guardian readers’ votes in our online poll, with Malala Yousafzai, joint official winner, in second place

Edward Snowden speaks during a presentation ceremony for the Sam Adams Award in Moscow, Russia.
Edward Snowden. Photograph: Uncredited/AP

Edward Snowden should have won the 2014 Nobel peace prize, according to Guardian readers who put the NSA whistleblower ahead of official winners Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi.

Snowden, who leaked documents revealing global surveillance by the US and UK to the Guardian and others last year, received 47% of reader votes, with educational campaigner Malala gaining 36% and Snowden’s fellow American whistleblower Chelsea Manning at 15%.

Snowden.
He lost the right to live in the country he loves (his words), to be close to his family, his girlfriend, he lost his anonymity and a nice salary in one of the rare companies that could challenge him technically (given his talent there’s not a lot of places where he can grow) and that’s because he’s been lucky not to be in the situation of Chelsea Manning (a fate he had accepted for himself) where he would have lost a lot more.
And he did it just to raise awareness about automatized criminal activities by our own governments and give a chance to the public to decide for itself what to do about it.
He controlled every steps from the moment he started collecting data to the moment the first articles appeared, unlike Chelsea who just sent everything to wikileaks and hoped for the best (that’s why he has my vote more than Chelsea, that and the fact that the data he unveiled are a lot more explosives and forced the whole world to react to it)

Guardian reader Norbert Schuff explained the reasoning behind his vote:

Snowden is the only one on this list who deserves the peace price. His revelations of the broad government surveillance of digital communications not only had the most global impact but will also shape actions for freedom of expression and right of privacy for years to come.

Readers’ hopes were dashed when the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the prestigious and often controversial prize to Malala and Satyarthi for “their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education”.

The committee prides itself on its independence, but, headed by Norway’s former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland and chosen by Norway’s parliament, its members are keenly aware of the political ramifications of their decisions.

“Giving it to Snowden would run against all political instincts. He is, after all, considered a traitor to one of Norway’s closest allies,” Kristian Harpviken, director at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, told the Christian Science Monitor.


UN privacy report a game-changer in fighting unlawful surveillance | Privacy International

UN privacy report a game-changer in fighting unlawful surveillance | Privacy International.

Today’s report on the right to privacy in the digital age by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, commissioned by the General Assembly in December 2013, marks an historic turning point in the international discourse around privacy and surveillance.

Privacy International believes the report will dramatically change the international conversation on the implications of surveillance and intelligence for human rights. Most importantly, it puts beyond doubt that the very existence of mass surveillance programmes – which the report notes are becoming a “dangerous habit” – interfere with human rights.

Not only is the report the most significant elaboration of the interpretation of the right to privacy issued by the UN in more than 25 years, it makes a number of ground-breaking findings that propel the fight against unlawful surveillance miles ahead. The High Commissioner uses consistently robust and clear language to issue the strongest condemnation of modern surveillance techniques that any international authority has appropriated to date.

The High Commissioner’s report lends substantial support to the propositions we have long advocated: that mass surveillance inherently interferes with human rights, mandatory data retention is neither necessary or proportionate, there is no persuasive difference between communications content and data when it comes to privacy, and States must extend human rights obligations to individuals whose communications pass through their jurisdictions (see our special report, Eyes Wide Open).

These are the same points we are advancing this week in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal as we take GCHQ to court for their own mass surveillance programme, and as we campaign against the UK’s efforts to rush through emergency legislation that drastically expands surveillance powers in Britain. The UN’s recognition of the right to privacy, in very strong terms, assists in dismantling many of the lines put forward by the UK government.

Below, we analyse the five major findings of the report that we believe will fundamentally transform the debate around surveillance, intelligence and the right to privacy.


La vigilancia masiva no cumple con estándares de derechos humanos – ONG Derechos Digitales

La vigilancia masiva no cumple con estándares de derechos humanos – ONG Derechos Digitales.

El Alto Comisionado de Derechos Humanos las Naciones Unidas acaba de publicar el reporte “Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”, un contundente espaldarazo a la protección de la privacidad en línea. Acá te explicamos las razones.

¿Te has preguntado qué pasa con la información personal que se recoge sin tu consentimiento?  Foto CC BY(jonathan mcintosh)-SA¿Te has preguntado qué pasa con la información personal que se recoge sin tu consentimiento?
Foto CC BY(jonathan mcintosh)-SA

En la vida moderna la protección de nuestra vida privada no sólo se encuentra regularmente en riesgo sino que es muchas veces nuestra información personal circula libremente en el mercado y, en otras, se utiliza como moneda de cambio para ofrecer servicios gratuitos. En ellos, nuestros datos son el precio que pagamos por su uso.

Las revelaciones de Edward Snowden han cambiado dramáticamente el escenario global en torno a la protección de nuestra información personal. No sólo agencias de seguridad de países desarrollados sino también empresas que facilitan sus sistemas para mejorar la colección masiva por parte de estas agencias, son parte de una red global de vigilancia masiva que ha evitado escrutinio legal y que ha tensionado a potencias mundiales por legitimar el espionaje político y económico bajo el sacrosanto principio de la seguridad nacional.

En noviembre de 2013, y con aprobación unánime —que incluyó el apoyo de Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, México, Nicaragua, Perú y Uruguay-, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas encargó un reporte al Alto Comisionado de Derechos Humanos respecto de la protección de la privacidad en el contexto de la vigilancia masiva. Dicho reporte acaba de ser publicado («The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age» PDF) y constituye un aporte sustantivo a la discusión respecto de estas prácticas y su conformidad con los estándares internacionales de derechos humanos.

Recomendaciones de protestos.org por la vigilancia en la Copa del Mundo. CC BY (Protestos)-NC-SA.Recomendaciones de protestos.org por la vigilancia en la Copa del Mundo.
CC BY (Protestos)-NC-SA.

El reporte es importante porque ilustra con claridad la manera en la que los estándares internacionales de derechos humanos sirven para evaluar prácticas de dudosa legalidad y con un impacto sustantivo producto del alcance y la masividad de Internet en el día de hoy. Sin ir más lejos, durante los últimos años hemos podido observar cómo en Colombia los servicios de inteligencia interceptaron comunicaciones de un proceso completo de negociaciones de paz; Argentina tiene probablemente el sistema de vigilancia estatal más agresivo de la región basado en identificación biométrica; y en Brasil, luego de las protestas por la Copa Confederaciones y el Mundial de Fútbol, los servicios de inteligencias han reforzado sus capacidades.

En Chile, hace algunos meses un estudiante secundario fue torturado en cuarteles policiales con el fin de obligarlo a entregar información de sus contactos en redes sociales; meses después, un estudiante universitario fue detenido injustamente acusado de golpear a un policía en medio de una protesta callejera, siendo identificado a través de una red social por parte de los servicios de inteligencia de la policía uniformada.

El informe de la Alta Comisionada de Derechos Humanos, Navi Pillay, especifica entre otros asuntos, que:


How does Facebook decide what to show in my news feed? | Technology | theguardian.com

How does Facebook decide what to show in my news feed? | Technology | theguardian.com.

Controversial emotion study is a reminder that the social network’s filters are constantly at work in the background

Facebook study breached ethical guidelines – researchers

How does Facebook filter my news feed?

 

 

The average Facebook user sees 300 updates a day out of a possible 1,500.
The average Facebook user sees 300 updates a day out of a possible 1,500. Photograph: DADO RUVIC/REUTERS

 

Facebook is secretly filtering my news feed? I’m outraged!

Not so secretly, actually. There is controversy this week over the social network’s research project manipulating nearly 700,000 users’ news feeds to understand whether it could affect their emotions.

But Facebook has been much more open about its general practice of filtering the status updates and page posts that you see in your feed when logging on from your various devices. In fact, it argues that these filters are essential.

Essential? Why can’t Facebook just show me an unfiltered feed?

Because, it argues, the results would be overwhelming. “Every time someone visits news feed there are on average 1,500 potential stories from friends, people they follow and pages for them to see, and most people don’t have enough time to see them all,” wrote Facebook engineer Lars Backstrom in a blog post in August 2013.

“With so many stories, there is a good chance people would miss something they wanted to see if we displayed a continuous, unranked stream of information.”

Bear in mind that this is just an average. In another blog post, by Facebook advertising executive Brian Boland in June 2014, he explained that for more intensive users, the risk of story overload is greater.


Facebook experimentó con 689.000 usuarios sin su consentimiento | Tecnología | EL PAÍS

Facebook experimentó con 689.000 usuarios sin su consentimiento | Tecnología | EL PAÍS.

 

Un usuario consulta una página de Facebbok. / reuters

Enviar a LinkedIn 65
Enviar a Tuenti Enviar a Menéame Enviar a Eskup

Enviar Imprimir Guardar

Una semana de experimento y millones de comentarios, en su mayoría negativos, han sido las consecuencias de un estudio llevado a cabo por varios ingenieros de Facebook. La mayor red social del mundo tomó 689.000 perfiles, sin aviso o consentimiento, para analizar su comportamiento alterando el algoritmo que selecciona las noticias que se ven de los amigos. Un grupo veía noticias positivas, el otro, negativas.

La indignación ha surgido al conocerse la publicación del estudio en la web de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Estados Unidos. Para la prueba se tomaron, exclusivamente, perfiles que escriben en inglés. El rechazo a comentar o interaccionar con los contenidos de tinte negativo, demasiado emotivos o cercanos a la tristeza, era mucho más alto. En ocasiones hasta un 90% de lo habitual. El estudio concluye que sí, que el ánimo de los comentarios de los contactos de Facebook invita a seguir en la deriva negativa o positiva, según el grupo que les tocase, al cabo de una semana.

Nos importa el impacto emocional de Facebook en las personas que lo usan

Adam Kramer, coautor del estudio

Este tipo de experimentos basados en interacción son muy comunes en ciertas webs y, sobre todo, en comercio electrónico, pero sin tener el cuenta el tinte del contenido. Se denomina A/B testing a mostrar una presentación (ya sea la distribución de la página o el estilo de los iconos) diferente bajo una misma web para poder estudiar si se emplea más tiempo en la misma, se hace más clic… pero nunca usando el tono del contenido como un componente más.

En un primer momento Facebook se limitó a decir que los posts, actualizaciones de estado, se podían consultar de manera habitual, sin matizar que la selección de una u otra opción (noticia positiva o negativa) con un fin experimental era dónde residía la ruptura de confianza con sus suscriptores. A última hora del domingo, a través del perfil de Adam Kramer, coautor del estudio y analista de datos dentro de la firma, se daba una explicación algo más concreta: “Nos importa el impacto emocional de Facebook en las personas que lo usan, por eso hemos hecho el estudio. Sentíamos que era importante investigar si ver contenido positivo de los amigos les hacía seguir dentro o si, el hecho de que lo que se contaba era negativo, les invitaba a no visitar Facebook. No queríamos enfadar a nadie”.

No queríamos enfadar a nadie

Adam Kramer, coautor del estudio

En la explicación asegura que solo afectó al 0,04% de los usuarios, uno por cada 2.500 perfiles, durante una semana a comienzos de 2012. La red social ha contestado al diario británico The Guardian que su intención era mejorar el servicio para mostrar contenido más relevante y que crease una mayor cercanía con la audiencia.

En lo que no parecen reparar dentro de la web de Mark Zuckerberg es que el malestar se crea en el momento en que se rompe lo establecido, un algoritmo similar para todos, y se experimenta con las sensaciones de sus usuarios. Tampoco matiza que el conocimiento adquirido a partir de este experimento se pueda aplicar a la publicidad contratada en su interior.

En todo caso, queda la sensación de que gracias a la publicación del estudio se ha conocido este experimento, pero cualquiera podría ser objeto de muchos otros por parte de los analistas de datos de Facebook sin necesidad de avisar. Según sus términos de uso, de manera explícita, al tener un perfil se da permiso a acceder para “operaciones internas, resolución de problemas, análisis de datos, experimentos, investigación y mejoras en el servicio”.


Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf: Sorry, but there’s no online ‘right to be forgotten’

Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf: Sorry, but there’s no online ‘right to be forgotten’.

Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf, National Post
Wednesday, Jun. 25, 2014

Damian Dovarganes/The Associated Press files

In a week-long series, National Post contributors reflect on a recent European Court of Justice judgment requiring Internet search providers to remove links to embarrassing information. Should Canadian citizens have a ‘right to be forgotten’?

A man walks into a library. He asks to see the librarian. He tells the librarian there is a book on the shelves of the library that contains truthful, historical information about his past conduct, but he says he is a changed man now and the book is no longer relevant. He insists that any reference in the library’s card catalog and electronic indexing system associating him with the book be removed, or he will go to the authorities.

The librarian refuses, explaining that the library does not make judgments on people, but simply offers information to readers to direct them to materials from which they can make their own judgment in the so-called “marketplace of ideas.” The librarian goes on to explain that if the library had to respond to such requests, it would become a censorship body — essentially the arbiter of what information should remain accessible to the public. Moreover, if it had to respond to every such request, the burden would be enormous and there would be no easy way to determine whether a request was legitimate or not. The indexing system would become swiss cheese, with gaps and holes. And, most importantly, readers would be deprived of access to historical information that would allow them to reach their own conclusions about people and events.

The librarian gives this example: What if someone is running for office but wants to hide something from his unsavory past by blocking access to the easiest way for voters to uncover those facts? Voters would be denied relevant information, and democracy would be impaired.

The man is not convinced, and calls a government agent. The government agent threatens to fine or jail the librarian if he does not comply with the man’s request to remove the reference to the unflattering book in the library’s indexing system.

Is this a scenario out of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four? No, this is the logical extension of a recent ruling from Europe’s highest court, which ordered Google to remove a link to truthful information about a person, because that person found the information unflattering and out of date. (The scale of online indexing would of course be dramatically more comprehensive than a library indexing system.)


¿Por qué es importante defender la neutralidad de la red? – ONG Derechos Digitales

¿Por qué es importante defender la neutralidad de la red? – ONG Derechos Digitales.

Mucho se ha hablado últimamente sobre “neutralidad de la red”, aunque probablemente no tengas idea en qué consiste. ¿Por qué es una idea que vale la pena defender? Francisco Vera lo explica y analiza un caso puntual en Chile.

La neutralidad de la red es un principio que dicta que las empresas proveedoras de Internet deben tratar todos los contenidos de la misma maneraLa neutralidad de la red es un principio que dicta que las empresas proveedoras de Internet deben tratar todos los contenidos de la misma manera

La neutralidad de la red es un principio, una importante idea bajo la cual se ha desarrollado Internet desde sus inicios, que dicta que las empresas proveedoras de conexión a Internet deben tratar todos los contenidos de la misma manera. No importa si se trata de una película, una conversación de chat o una imagen publicada en una red social, todos deben ser transmitidos en igualdad de condiciones.

¿Por qué es buena la neutralidad de la red?

La neutralidad de la red garantiza que todos los usuarios de Internet puedan acceder a cualquier servicio de la red, independiente del contenido, la plataforma o el protocolo usado para intercambiar información en Internet. Este principio nos permite acceder a la amplia gama de posibilidades que nos ofrece Internet: podemos jugar en línea desde cualquier dispositivo; podemos descargar una distribución de Linux por descarga directa o usando el protocolo Bittorrent; podemos usar Skype en lugar del teléfono, Hangouts como alternativa a Skype, y podremos usar al sucesor de ambas cuando aparezca en el mercado.

La neutralidad de la red garantiza que podamos usar nuevos y mejores servicios en Internet, sin que los proveedores de conexión puedan fijar condiciones que perjudiquen a unos sobre otros, especialmente en los casos donde esos proveedores también ofrecen contenidos propios que pueden querer privilegiar. La neutralidad de la red defiende la libertad de competir y, al mismo tiempo, nuestra libertad de elegir.


Privacy under attack: the NSA files revealed new threats to democracy | Technology | The Guardian

Privacy under attack: the NSA files revealed new threats to democracy | Technology | The Guardian.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know the apparatus of repression has been covertly attached to the democratic state. However, our struggle to retain privacy is far from hopeless

US National Security Agency
The US National Security Agency threat operations centre in Fort Meade, Maryland, in 2006. Photograph: Paul Richards/AFP/Getty Images

In the third chapter of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon gave two reasons why the slavery into which the Romans had tumbled under Augustus and his successors left them more wretched than any previous human slavery. In the first place, Gibbon said, the Romans had carried with them into slavery the culture of a free people: their language and their conception of themselves as human beings presupposed freedom. And thus, says Gibbon, for a long time the Romans preserved the sentiments – or at least the ideas – of a freeborn people. In the second place, the empire of the Romans filled all the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world was a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. As Gibbon wrote, to resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly.

The power of that Roman empire rested in its leaders’ control of communications. The Mediterranean was their lake. Across their European empire, from Scotland to Syria, they pushed roads that 15 centuries later were still primary arteries of European transportation. Down those roads the emperor marched his armies. Up those roads he gathered his intelligence. The emperors invented the posts to move couriers and messages at the fastest possible speed.

Using that infrastructure, with respect to everything that involved the administration of power, the emperor made himself the best-informed person in the history of the world.

That power eradicated human freedom. “Remember,” said Cicero to Marcellus in exile, “wherever you are, you are equally within the power of the conqueror.”

The empire of the United States after the second world war also depended upon control of communications. This was more evident when, a mere 20 years later, the United States was locked in a confrontation of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union. In a war of submarines hidden in the dark below the continents, capable of eradicating human civilisation in less than an hour, the rule of engagement was “launch on warning”. Thus the United States valued control of communications as highly as the Emperor Augustus. Its listeners too aspired to know everything.

We all know that the United States has for decades spent as much on its military might as all other powers in the world combined. Americans are now realising what it means that we applied to the stealing of signals and the breaking of codes a similar proportion of our resources in relation to the rest of the world.

The US system of listening comprises a military command controlling a large civilian workforce. That structure presupposes the foreign intelligence nature of listening activities. Military control was a symbol and guarantee of the nature of the activity being pursued. Wide-scale domestic surveillance under military command would have violated the fundamental principle of civilian control.

Instead what it had was a foreign intelligence service responsible to the president as military commander-in-chief. The chain of military command absolutely ensured respect for the fundamental principle “no listening here”. The boundary between home and away distinguished the permissible from the unconstitutional.

The distinction between home and away was at least technically credible, given the reality of 20th-century communications media, which were hierarchically organised and very often state-controlled.

When the US government chose to listen to other governments abroad – to their militaries, to their diplomatic communications, to their policymakers where possible – they were listening in a world of defined targets. The basic principle was: hack, tap, steal. We listened, we hacked in, we traded, we stole.

In the beginning we listened to militaries and their governments. Later we monitored the flow of international trade as far as it engaged American national security interests.


Vladimir Putin must be called to account on surveillance just like Obama | Edward Snowden | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Vladimir Putin must be called to account on surveillance just like Obama | Edward Snowden | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

I questioned the Russian president live on TV to get his answer on the record, not to whitewash him

Vladimir Putin during the nationwide phone-in in Moscow.
Vladimir Putin during the nationwide phone-in in Moscow. Photograph: RIA Novosti/Reuters

On Thursday, I questioned Russia’s involvement in mass surveillance on live television. I asked Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, a question that cannot credibly be answered in the negative by any leader who runs a modern, intrusive surveillance program: “Does [your country] intercept, analyse or store millions of individuals’ communications?”

I went on to challenge whether, even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified.

The question was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion. (See a side-by-side comparison of Wyden’s question and mine here.)

Clapper’s lie – to the Senate and to the public – was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.

In his response, Putin denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter. There are serious inconsistencies in his denial – and we’ll get to them soon – but it was not the president’s suspiciously narrow answer that was criticised by many pundits. It was that I had chosen to ask a question at all.

I was surprised that people who witnessed me risk my life to expose the surveillance practices of my own country could not believe that I might also criticise the surveillance policies of Russia, a country to which I have sworn no allegiance, without ulterior motive. I regret that my question could be misinterpreted, and that it enabled many to ignore the substance of the question – and Putin’s evasive response – in order to speculate, wildly and incorrectly, about my motives for asking it.


Snowden asks Putin about Russian surveillance during phone-in – video | World news | theguardian.com

Snowden asks Putin about Russian surveillance during phone-in – video | World news | theguardian.com.

Edward Snowden calls in to ask a question of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, during a televised phone-in. Putin denies Russia is involved in ‘mass, indiscriminate’ surveillance but says they use modern means to fight terrorism. Whistleblower Edward Snowden was granted asylum in Russia in 2013


The State of Privacy 2014 | Privacy International

The State of Privacy 2014 | Privacy International.

In Geneva this week, an expert seminar will be held at the Human Rights Council on the right to privacy. To inform these discussions and debates, Privacy International is releasing our report, The State of Privacy 2014, which identifies recent accomplishments from around the world, and highlights significant challenges ahead for this right.

To read the full report, go here.

Promoting and defending the right to privacy in national and international policy discourses is always an interesting challenge. The right to privacy is fundamental to who we are as human beings, insulating our most intimate and personal thoughts and deeds, and acts as a critical safeguard against abuse and overreach by pow- erful institutions. It is perhaps for these reasons that the right has for so long been under attack by governments.

At the same time, privacy has received too little attention within the human rights community. Unlike many other human rights, privacy requires an understanding of law, ethics, technology, sociology, and policy. In many ways it is also subjected to prevailing forces and trends within these domains. Meanwhile significant changes in technology, coupled with trends in security policy, have given rise to previously unimaginable forms of surveil- lance. There has been a deluge of policy and technology changes across the world.

We have seen a gradual and yet significant change in this respect over the past five years, as new technologies have become ubiquitous in both the developed and developing world, and privacy issues have begun to surface in the public consciousness. Privacy International began working with organisations and academics in developing countries in 2008 to promote research and policy engagement around privacy. In this time we have seen privacy make a remarkable ascent up the political agenda in countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Privacy and data protection have gained currency in conversations about biometric technologies, identification systems, public health initiatives, development and humanitarian initiatives, and, of course, national security and law enforcement debates.

In June 2013 the entire discourse changed dramatically. The catalyst for the right’s recent rise to the top of international political and human rights agendas was last year’s series of revelations by Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor. The importance of the Snowden revelations cannot be overstated, as they finally gave us the evidence of what we had most feared: that governments acting with scant attention to legal protections, are using invasive techniques to collect as much as they can, while compromising the systems that we all rely upon. Equally, these revelations accelerated, in leaps and bounds, the process of building public knowledge about global surveillance arrangements and capabilities. Awareness of, and interest in, the right to privacy is now unprecedented.

And so it was that 2013 became the year that privacy advocates finally gained traction in the halls of national parliaments and the United Nations General Assembly; that strong civil society coalitions were formed across borders and regions; that the world’s 101st data protection law was adopted (by South Africa). Privacy became, in the words of Human Rights Watch,‘the right whose time has come’.


An online Magna Carta: Berners-Lee calls for bill of rights for web | Technology | The Guardian

An online Magna Carta: Berners-Lee calls for bill of rights for web | Technology | The Guardian.

Exclusive: web’s inventor warns neutrality under sustained attack from governments and corporations

 

 

Link to video: World wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee: ‘Establish web’s principles of openness and privacy’

The inventor of the world wide web believes an online “Magna Carta” is needed to protect and enshrine the independence of the medium he created and the rights of its users worldwide.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee told the Guardian the web had come under increasing attack from governments and corporate influence and that new rules were needed to protect the “open, neutral” system.

Speaking exactly 25 years after he wrote the first draft of the first proposal for what would become the world wide web, the computer scientist said: “We need a global constitution – a bill of rights.”

Berners-Lee’s Magna Carta plan is to be taken up as part of an initiative called “the web we want”, which calls on people to generate a digital bill of rights in each country – a statement of principles he hopes will be supported by public institutions, government officials and corporations.

“Unless we have an open, neutral internet we can rely on without worrying about what’s happening at the back door, we can’t have open government, good democracy, good healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture. It’s not naive to think we can have that, but it is naive to think we can just sit back and get it.”

Berners-Lee has been an outspoken critic of the American and British spy agencies’ surveillance of citizens following the revelations by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. In the light of what has emerged, he said, people were looking for an overhaul of how the security services were managed.